Talk:Superman (1978 film)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

No mention of the movie winning the 1979 Hugo award at Seacon in Brighton, England? Odd. --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Specifically it was the "Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation." --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now I happen to be a major fan of that Awesome cartoon from the 90's, but What I am unclear about is where it says in the reaction section "The movie's legacy includes numerous television series, notably Superboy (produced, like the movie, by Alexander Salkind), Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Superman: The Animated Series, and the current prequel series, Smallville, which have all been influenced by the movie to some extent." Now I can understand how the live action Superboy series, Lois & Clark, and Smallville are clearly influenced by this film, but What exact Inspiration is there in the Animated Series with THIS MOVIE. Because that Cartoon Presents itself to be FAR Different from what you compare to this movie. Some examples would be the plot development with some of the supporting characters like Keeping BOTH the Kent Parents, and the Portrayal of some of the better comic book vilians the superman faces. So What Are THE Similarities? Nathen

... it just looks that way because he is going back in time. Honestly, we have two possible interpretations, one of which makes sense and the other of which is completely ridiculous. Why would anyone favour the second one? Admittedly they did an extraordinarily poor job of explaining it (I think the audience was supposed to get it based on Jor-El's warning not to interfere with history, but that was much too subtle). But, that doesn't make the nonsense interpretation "obviously" right.

Therefore, I'm un-reverting this change. If someone disagrees, that's fine but I think this interpretation should at least be mentioned somewhere. (Also, the reversion also put back a grammatical error I fixed. Like the guidelines say, if you're going to revert, avoid collateral damage.)

Refresh my memory - when he's done "spinning it backwards", does he not then appear to "spin it back forwards"? Also, do you have any evidence of this from the script, or is this a personal theory? --Golbez 22:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately for both of us, the publically available shooting script doesn't have that scene at all. Superman rescues Lois on the first try. (Everything else from Tessmacher rescuing Superman onwards pretty much proceeds as per the finished movie.) I'd welcome a look at the final script, or a look at interviews with someone like Salkind. It just seems to me that there are two explanations on the table, and one is ridiculous, so the other should be preferred, even if it seems less obvious to most people.

Having said that, I reiterate that if someone wants to re-edit the page so that part is worded less strongly, I don't really have a problem with that, but I do think the interpretation I brought up should at least be mentioned.

How is it any more ridiculous than a baby from another planet having super powers? ;) I'll try to slip it in. --Golbez 05:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's just a genre convention; a better point would be that it requires a selective reading of Einsteinean physics for the alternative to work. Let me stay instead that one explanation is, by a very large margin, more ridiculous than the other.

.......................... From the published story, Lex, Otis, and Eve, learn of Superman's weaknesses (he is unable to see through lead, and he is vulnerable to the substance Kryptonite), and Luthor finds out that a meteorite of the needed mineral is available at Addis Ababa. A

Did he really tell them that in the interview? A major lack of discretion!

In the interview with Lois, Superman said he was from Krypton and could not see through lead. He did not say anything about vulnerability to kryptonite, Lex Luthor deduced that somehow. Luthor's "explanation" to his moronic underlings about kryptonite being lethal only to Superman because of "the specific level of radiation" is scientific nonsense, but they had to come up with something. As far as "turning back the world", Superman can fly faster than the speed of light when he puts his mind to it, as per the comics. In fact there's something about flying "clockwise" vs. "counterclockwise" depending on which direction in time he's going, and that is visually alluded to on-screen, as he flies one direction around the globe to go backwards in time, and the other direction to go forwards (having apparently overshot his stopping point initially, or whatever). The fact that he could fly faster than the speed of light at that point, but was only able to catch up with one of the two rockets a little while earlier, is another slight hole in the plotline. Either that, or he can't exceed light speed unless he's really annoyed. Wahkeenah 00:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The first thing you mentioned was a plot hole, and... not really related to the discussion. As fpr the second thing you mentioned, Salkind and Donner both state on the audio commentaries for the film that Superman is spinning back the world. (Donner actually says that he "stops" the world's rotation briefly before causing it to spin back again. Absurd as that concept seems, I wouldn't expect most filmmakers in 1978 to be particularly concerned or knowledgable about quantum physics. Moreover, I would have even less expectation that the average moviegoer in 1978 would care. Despite the absurdity of this idea, it is no doubt what the filmmakers intended. The anatomy of the dinosaurs in Wallace and Cooper's King Kong doesn't fit factual information, but very few people have seen fit to argue that this means they aren't supposed to be dinosaurs. Basically what I'm saying: It's a movie. Deal with it. 1:06, 27 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.131.242 (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure that Otis is not a comic-inspired character but why does he work for Lex Luthor? I mean, I can't see any way that he does.

(65.4.232.187 20:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

• Luthor asked himself that same question: "Why am I surrounding myself by total nincompoops?" By so doing, at least he doesn't have to worry about anyone intellectually challenging him. Wahkeenah 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The movie led to three theatrical sequels, Superman II (1980), Superman III (1983) and the non-related Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987); and inspired the Salkind-backed 1984 follow-up, Supergirl.

This has got to be a mistake (or the work of a vandal). Supergirl is the unrelated one, Superman IV is no more "unrelated" than III was to II. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we have a section on material from the movie that was original, and not part of the original comic book's canon? For example, Lex deducing kryptonite, Superman being able to time travel, etc. Also, I remember in the movie that he was unable to lie, is that right? It seems that that would be at odds with maintaining a secret identity. Also, I've heard that several conventions from the movie were later carried over into the comic book titles (Jor-El wearing the superman symbol on Krypton, Clark and Superman parting their hair on opposite sides). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Superman doesn't lie, but Clark Kent apparently does. Another way to look at it is that the Clark disguise is to enable him to find out about trouble in the world without being too conspicuous. So he justifies it on that basis. Maybe Superman doesn't "lie", but he "rationalizes". Time travel was part of the comics long before it was used in the movie. It was based on somewhat flawed interpretations of Einstein's laws. However, if the casual reader can accept that a man can fly just by jumping into the air, then anything is believable. Wahkeenah 16:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting numerous plot sections of Superman articles due to copyright violations by 64.123.114.194, and while I've found the sources for Superman 2 and 3 (supermanhomepage.com), there was a recent (Dec 9) substantial plot update here that I haven't found the source of, in case this one is a copyright violation as well. Googling just left me with several Wikipedia mirrors for it. So just a heads-up in case someone wish to check this further. -- Jugalator 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You should revert the whole bloody essay that guy pasted in there. It reads not so much like someone simply describing the film, but like a critic's extended review. So either it's ripped off, or it's original research laced with Point-of-View, and either way it has to go. One thing that caught my attention was how it jumped over the 7 minutes (or whatever) of opening credits without even mentioning them.... a dead giveaway that something's fishy here. Wahkeenah 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Without someone posting permission, this is a copyright violation. Even without this, it's blatant plagiarism. The original is here. I've reverted it. JRM · Talk 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Pathetic, ain't it? Bravo for reverting it. Wahkeenah 01:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  If you're not familiar with the procedure, see Wikipedia:Revert. Anyone can and should do this when they can justify it on the talk page (as you did). Be bold. If you're concerned about someone overriding your judgment, just respect the one-revert rule and you'll be fine. JRM · Talk 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  I might have done it, but I figured you were on top of it, and you found the reference, so you get the gold star. :) Wahkeenah 04:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

On the DVD commentary Donner says Oxford Scientific Films did the high speed effects photography for the Krypton Sun. Worth adding.

I have added a Cleanup message template starting at the Synopsis section heading because the synopsis itself is way, way overlong. Is the purpose of this article the actual retelling of the movie, or the encyclopedic analysis of the movie? Darcyj 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Have started to copy-edit what there is, but I agree this is not a synopsis, more a screenplay treatment! Are you asking for a one- or two-paragraph summary of the film? It can be easily condensed, if need be. Chris 42 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

...And I've done it! Slightly more than two paragraphs, but I hope it reads okay and covers all the major plot points. I also did a few minor edits. I removed the 'screen shot' photo, as it didn't state to what it was being compared, along one of the 'teaser trailer' shots, as it was unclear and Christopher Reeve's name was illegible. Chris 42 19:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be significant to mention that the DVD's soundtrack was NOT a simple remaster, but an entirely new soundtrack build including some re-created sound elements? Violet Grey 09:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. Feel free to add it. Wahkeenah 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder about the phraseology "entirely new soundtrack". Technically that might be true, but it's actually a mix of old and new. The "whoosh" for the credits is clearly new (and, frankly, annoying and intrusive, rather than being "just part of it" as it was initially) but the music itself is the original track, near as I can tell... which is evident from the music-only track which has some apparent flaws in it. Wahkeenah 02:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We, I only use the term "new" as in it is newly created and mixed for the DVD project. This version of the soundtrack has never apeared in any other form and is beyond a simple remix or remaster. Of course it is open for debate and alteration if the majority sees it should be so. Violet Grey 14:36 16 May, 2006

• I see. I'd like to hear your impressions of the music-only portion of the DVD, if you happen to have listened to it. Wahkeenah 00:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think as wonderful as John Williams music consistantly is, this is not a movie that really functions without the dialouge and effects. Star Wars works that way simply because Lucas is a poor writer, but the people in this film are its most important element. Violet Grey 2:2520 May, 2006

Suggestion: Rename the article to "Superman: The Movie".

I've been doing a lot of work on other Superman articles, and I'm pretty sick of writing "[[Superman (1978 film)|Superman: The Movie]]." If the film was just called "Superman", then I'd be happy to disambiguate it so, but it's clearly semi-formally known as "Superman: The Movie". The opening sentence of the article states that it was only called "The Movie" in "pre-release advertising". But I have here in my hands a 2001 DVD titled "(Superman) The Movie Special Edition" - so yes, it is still often officially called "Superman: The Movie" even today.

I prefer to use the "long version" of something's name as the article title over a disambiguation - especially a disambig-by-year. But I won't rename it without some sort of approval since it's a heavily-linked page. —EatMyShortz 12:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• You can decrease your keystrokes by putting a vertical bar after "(1978 film)": Superman. The title debate has been held before. Regardless of various marketing campaigns, the true title is what appears on-screen. The film's real (reel) title is not Superman: The Movie, nor Superman: The Movie - Special Edition. It is just plain Superman. Wahkeenah 13:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Wahkeenah. As on the IMDb's pages, a film may be known under a number of titles, but the one that appears on the screen at its first public showing is the only one that counts — and is therefore the official title. (Hence why, for example, X2 is not called X-Men 2, even though it was heavily used during the film's promotion.) The DVD may be called Superman: The Movie but it contains a film entitled Superman. This page has already been moved from its incorrect title at least once before. Chris 42 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I could reduce my keystrokes by writing "[[Superman (1978 film)|]]" except that I find myself always having to write "[[Superman (1978 film)|Superman: The Movie]]" (as I said) - and this is partly just to keep up with everywhere else on Wikipedia where the link is called that as well. Maybe we have it wrong across the board, but it's not just me. At any rate, if you insist it must be called just "Superman", then I insist that the article title be simplified to "Superman (film)" - removing the date. After all, there is only one film called "Superman", and the page Superman (film) already redirects to Superman (1978 film). Is this proposal acceptable? —EatMyShortz 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So long as the article reflects the film's correct title, then I have no problem with that. However, having just checked the IMDb, there are a number of films called Superman. Of course, the 1978 one is the most well known, but perhaps there is still an argument for keeping the date? Personally, I would prefer it if any references to Superman: The Movie throughout Wikipedia were changed to Superman, which would ensure both uniformity and accuracy. Chris 42 15:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Are Chris and I the only ones who realize the importance of disambiguation? Especially when the opposing push is for a suffix as silly as simply "(film)" or "The movie". I mean...really. Look at "Punisher (film)"—the article, not the actual movie in its entirity. I've heard bad things.—or cinema marquees. Returns is the new "Superman". WW, FF, Batman and Shazam! have all been made before, but more modern movies are still being made. Bottomline, america: Disambiguating with the date is more respectful to the past and helpful to modern movie-researchers. Sorry if I got ranty, but I just had to add my ten—noticibly more than two—cents. ACS (Wikipedian) 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I perfectly understand the purpose of disambiguation - it isn't supposed to completely remove all possible conflicts, but just disambiguate enough so that it is unique on Wikipedia. If you want more information, such as the date, you go and read the first sentence of the article. Disambiguation is just there to make sure you get to the article in question, and therefore, it should be the shortest and most obvious title which is still unique. Since "Superman" is taken (by the character, far more important than the film), the next shortest and most obvious disambiguation is "Superman (film)". If someone goes looking for this article, do you think they're going to type in "Superman (1978 film)"? The other way to look at it is, either way we go, the other one will redirect to the article anyway, so it's not about people finding it, it's just a question of "which out of all the different redirects to this article is the shortest and most obvious disambiguation?", and it clearly is "Superman (film)" (Or "Superman: The Movie" if that is it's actual title, but you tell me it isn't). —EatMyShortz 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the list of Bonus Features that are included in the 2001 Special Edition DVD.

I don't know why say that. I do that's a question searching for an answer.

user:I'm Madonna 8:58 p.m. PD: Don't Know what Day is it Today

It's a sequel to the 2nd film. Bryan Singer has stated (tho I don't have the time to look up a reference) that it picks up the storyline 5 yrs after II. You know, Lois has had a kid, the kid is obviously Superman's son, they slept together in the 2nd film... Tommyt 20:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This of course begs the question of whether or not all the Christopher Reeve films as well as Superman Returns fit into the same continuity... But I would agree that Returns is a sequel to I and II. 1:18, 27 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.131.242 (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Why is 'General Zod' mentioned in this film when he does not actually appear in the franchise til the 2nd movie? leopheard 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• He's in the opening scene, along with the other two Kryptionian criminals, all three of whom are sent to the Phantom Zone soon before Krypton's sun goes supernova, thus they escape its fate. Originally, there was a notion that they were going to re-appear at the end, when the rocket Superman sent up into space explodes and frees them, thus creating a cliffhanger ending. That plan was scrapped and a similar concept was used early in Superman II. Wahkeenah 05:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Which version of superman the movie does richard donner prefer, the original theatrical cut, or the 2000 extended version with the integrated bonus scenes? Adam

The article now describes the film's plot in three acts, which are:

1. Krypton + Smallville
2. Metropolis: Superman's deeds and Luthor's plan
3. Climax

It seems to me that the divide between these "acts" 2 and 3 is fairly arbitrary. (ie. Wikipedia made it up, it wasn't actually a real "third act"). Furthermore, I think there are three clearly-defined acts (and Donner and Mankiewicz back this up on the DVD commentary) - which are 1. Krypton, 2. Smallville, 3. Metropolis. Although with this redivision, Act III would be far longer than the first two acts, I think it much better represents the three distinct parts of the film. —EatMyShortz 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Critics who have divided the film into three (unequal) parts have used your breakout, not the other one. If that's in the article that way, it should be either changed or dropped altogether, as it is probably the editor's opinion. To look at it another way, the three "acts" are (1) Kal-El / Clark as an infant (2) Clark as a teen; and (3) Clark / Superman as an adult. Those aren't really "acts" in the typical sense, in fact. They are "mood changes". The scenes on Krypton are absolutely, deadly serious. A little humor starts to appear in Smallville, but it's still mostly serious. Metropolis is played like a comic book, and even Lex Luthor is hard to take seriously in spite of his murderous nature (too bad Kevin Spacey wasn't in the role then.) That's the difference among the three "acts". Wahkeenah 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is proof of this? I've got the Ultimate Superman Collection (The 14 disc set) and I've watched nearly every special feature about this movie and I've heard absolutely no mention of a 4th villian. If this can't be proven then it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scmods (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

• Gone. Wahkeenah 04:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Listen to Salkind and Spengler's commentary on the first film again. They mention it. (By the way, why does it appear to be three hours and four minutes later where you are than where I am? 1:23, 28 December 2006
    • Both Jak-El the fourth villain and Albert, Lex's other henchman, appeared in this draft of Mario Puzo's script, dated 1976: http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/superman_original.txt. They also appear in the early draft for Superman II. I'm going to add mention of them back along with links to the scripts, if there's no objections. - Kooshmeister
      • OK, no problem. I haven't got around to listening to Salkind and Spanglers commentary yet. I just hadn't heard any mention of a 4th villian, so I was trying to verify that. Scmods 10:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One line in the trivia section says: At no point in the movie does Superman use his heat vision, one of his most famous powers. Is this the only one Superman film where he doesn't use his heat vision? David Pro 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• That was his X-ray vision. X-rays allows one to see through objects such as handbags, chest cavities, etc., but cannot travel through lead like the one lining the planter in Lois' oppulently palatial penthouse apartment. Therefore he could not see the color of her panties until she she walked around the aforementioned planter. --Jack Meihoffer 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • True. One could say he didn't need to, in this film (although he could have melted that lead planter, I supposed). I'm guessing Lois wore lead BVD's after that incident. But he needed to use heat vision at more than one point in Superman II, and did so. Wahkeenah 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Apeantly there is a version of the 2006 dvd on amazon.com that is in high definition.They cant really have that 1970s film in high definition can they,or is it just the extras or something?192.30.202.19

• Presumably one could make a high-def scan of a normal print. Kind of like making a CD from vinyl record. Wahkeenah 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok,i see what you mean now,you mean its like having a photograph that is standard resolution size and photo scanning it at high definition resolution,you see more detail in the photograph,but the scene in the photograph isn't any clearerRodrigue 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what I'm getting at. As with older CD's from earlier recordings, where you can even sometimes hear tape hiss or crackling from the vinyl, this is another case of "you can't improve on the original". However, you can manipulate the original, as Lucas did with his early Star Wars films for re-release. Perhaps such trickery was done with the 1978 film, for example. Even the ca.2001 DVD release had new audio effects thrown in. That brings up the question of artistic integrity. It's like touching up the Mona Lisa with paint from the local hobby shop. Wahkeenah 13:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The movie was shot on film; therefore, it's already in HD. Film has a much higher resolution than VHS, DVD, and even HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray. They just need to scan the film in at 1080 lines to get an HD-DVD version. 194.203.201.92 08:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am moving the trivia section onto the talk page so that anything useful can be worked into the rest of the article. As it stands, it has very little value in the article as it is difficult to read, too long and contains a lot of pointless things. Take a look at WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV for information on how to use trivia more effectively. David Pro 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

• The designation of the stylized 'S' as Jor-El's family crest on the planet Krypton solved an apparent logical dilemma for the creators of the Superman films. The 'S' is indestructible, as is the rest of Superman's uniform, but Kal-El was not called "Superman" on Krypton. The creators decided to adorn every Kryptonian leader's robes with a family crest (as noted in publicity magazines at the time) and the one for Jor-El's family happened to look like a stylized 'S'.

• Some reports say it was Marlon Brando's own idea for Jor-El to wear the recognizable 'S' symbol in the scenes on Krypton. The establishment of the 'S' emblem as the El family crest was a departure from the first three eras (Golden, Silver, Modern) of official DC Comics continuity, in which the 'S' emblem and costume were both created by Martha Kent (Mary Kent in the Golden Age) after Clark chose his heroic name. However, in the 2003 series Superman: Birthright, the 'S' symbol has been changed to represent a universal symbol of the planet Krypton, adorning their flags and military uniforms in holographic projections Clark finds contained in a device that came with him from Krypton. He chooses to wear the symbol to honor his Kryptonian heritage, and the name "Superman" is given to him by the newspapers.

• Christopher Reeve reported the following anecdote in his autobiography. The idealistic young actor Reeve asked the seasoned veteran Hackman what his 'motivation' was in playing the role of Luthor. Hackman responded, "You mean, besides the million dollars?"

• As had become his habit, Brando did not memorize his lines; he read them from cue cards spread around the set.

• Gene Hackman would not wear a bald cap for the part of Lex Luthor (with the exception of one scene at the end of this film, and a few scenes for the production of the second film), so Mankiewicz devised the notion of Luthor wearing several different wigs throughout the film.

• During the Smallville segment, the original recording of "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & His Comets is heard on a car radio. This is significant as this is played at the beginning of Glenn Ford's final scene in the movie; Ford had starred in Blackboard Jungle, the film that introduced "Rock Around the Clock" (and helped launch the rock and roll era). The expanded ABC edit of the film, however, replaces the song with another piece of music.

• Superman was the first film to feature a split-channel surround soundtrack — originally a 6-channel presentation. Dolby Digital sound made its debut in Batman Returns. Both were produced by Warner Bros. and feature characters appearing in titles from DC Comics.

• DC Comics held The Great Superman Movie Contest, where two people won bit parts in the movie. Two teenage boys, Edward Finneran from Massachusetts and Tim Hussey from California, won the contest by cutting special letters out of comics and mailing them in. They appear in the movie as 'special football players' in the scene where Clark is the equipment manager for the high school football team. As the team runs into the school (actually a local football team from rural Canada where the scene was shot), the two winners are identifiable as they go by together, wearing gray uniforms without numbers; Ed says "See you later, Clark!".

• Shortly thereafter, Kirk Alyn and Noel Neill, who played the original Superman and Lois Lane in the movie serials, also have cameos. They appear as the parents of Lois Lane as a child on a train, while a young Clark Kent speeds by. Noel Neill would also have a cameo as the elderly Gertrude in Superman Returns, directed by Bryan Singer and intended as a sequel that ignores the continuity of Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

• As Richard Donner confirmed in the DVD audio commentary, he has a bit cameo in the shots of Clark getting caught in the Daily Planet doors: he is reflected in the glass.

• At no point in the movie does Superman use his heat vision, one of his most famous powers.

• Originally, there was a fourth Kryptonian villain imprisoned in the Phantom Zone with General Zod, an "evil prankster" named "Jak-El" (apparently a pun on the word jackal). Lex Luthor also had a second henchman in addition to Otis in this incarnation of the story, a German man named "Albert." Both of these characters appeared in the July, 1976 draft of the script by Mario Puzo (which can be found here: http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/superman_original.txt), but were dropped in subsequent drafts.

• Young Clark Kent (Jeff East) was dubbed with Christopher Reeve's voice. The only time East's real voice is actually heard in the movie is when he yells as he jumps across the train tracks.
• Superman was originally going to end with a cliff hanger where Superman throws the missile into the Phantom Zone, releasing the villains. The "turning the world back" ending was intended for Superman II; one of the edits to 2006's Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut replaced the theatrical cut's ending with the "turning back" version. David Pro 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not move this article without discussing it first. I believe it has been well hashed out that the proper title for this movie is Superman. Even if it were to be accepted that the correct title is Superman: The Movie, the article would not then be titled Superman: The Movie (film). It's redundant and unnecessary. The "(film)" is only there to differentiate this from other items titled "Superman". Now, if anyone wants to discuss changing the name of this article to Superman: The Movie, now would be the time and here would be the place to do so. Rhindle The Red 04:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, I had to put (film) after the title because when I tried to move the page, It wouldn't let me. Try for yourself, you'll see what I mean. I think that Superman: The Movie IS the correct title for the film. Even the 2006 DVD cover on the bottom of the page states so.Limetolime 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - "Superman: The Movie" is the real title. BGC 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to BGC not following procedure, we are back to the improper article title "Superman: The Movie (film)". We need to decide what the title will be and then get all of these moves fixed so that the discussions are on the correct page. The basic arguments for the two possibilites, Superman: The Movie and Superman (1978 film) go as follows:

• Superman: The Movie is the title that is used most often in promotional material and even by the people who made the film. Posters and home video releases usually use this title.
• Superman (1978 film) reflects the title of the movie as it actually appears on screen in the film itself. This is the rule that the Internet Movie Database follows. It is the title that the article has held for the longest.

We need to decide what the title will be and stick to it. There are now numerous links that go to both options and one needs to take precedence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhindle The Red (talk • contribs)

I would most support the title used in the opening credits. I had seen the title of The Road to Guantanamo represented on posters with and without the acute accent on the second A in "Guantanamo"[1][2] but when I saw the beginning of the film, it shows "Guantanamo" without the acute accent.[3] I personally think that this determination should be the final authority. Reginmund 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what promotional or marketing materials claim. The onscreen title of the movie — that one that is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, the Screen Writers Guild, the Motion Picture Academy of America, etc. — is the only title.

In addition, every authoritative reference source — from Screen World Annual to The Variety Sourcebook to The Motion Picture Guide, which was bought and put online by TVGuide.com — uses the proper title. It is Superman — just as it is Die Hard 2, and not Die Hard 2: Die Harder.

This should not even be a discussion. We don't vote on what our favorite title is. This is an encyclopedia, and the only title an encyclopedia uses is the official, registered, onscreen title. --Tenebrae 08:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are discussing "favorites" here. We are discussing what is the most appropriate title for the article and that is not necessarily the "official" title. The original Star Trek show is not at Star Trek (it's proper title) or even Star Trek (TV series). It is at Star Trek: The Original Series because that is the accepted way of referring to it *now*. I actually agree with your points, but the notion of calling the article Superman: The Movie is still a valid one, if not one I agree with. Rhindle The Red 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement on the practical matter, and an interesting point of view on the theoretical. I'm not going to get into a tussle with Trekkies (term used advisedly), but it'sonly fans and the Paramount marketing dept. that call it Star Trek: The Original Series, and not even Paramount is changing the titles onscreen.

Wikipedia is written for the general public, who only knows the original TV show as Star Trek, and frankly, there's billions more general public than there are fans. Wikipedia is written, calls it Star Trek, and that in fact is the title. You mention people call it ST:TOS *now*. But an encyclopedia cannot base some of its most important decisions, such as naming criteria, on transient changes, fads, or marketing ploys.

What one person calls "appropriate" another person may not. "Appropriate" is opinion. The official, accurate, factual, registered name is not opinion.

Forgive me if I sound like I'm coming down on you. I'm not -- we're in agreement. But I'm rightfully concerned about a lack of encyclopedic standards overall. Ask yourself: Would the Encyclopedia Britannica not have the official title of the series in an article about the series? --Tenebrae 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Superman: The Movie (film) to Superman (1978 film) as the result of a move request. Folks, there's no sign of a poll on this page, so I've moved it to "Superman (1978 film)". You may continue to debate the merits of "Superman: The Movie" but the extra disambiguation of "(film)" had to go. While I agree the film was originally entitled "Superman: The Movie," the fact that it was followed by several numbered sequels seems to have affected the use of the title in subsequent releases, presumably because it was no longer "the" movie. (See Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and (Indiana Jones and the ) Raiders of the Lost Ark for two contrasting examples of this.) If there's still a strong desire to move this article to "Superman: The Movie" please re-post it to Wikipedia: Requested moves. Thanks, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (Comment later re-added after weird server behavior meant the talk page wasn't moved -- thanks Stemonitis -- and this comment was never added)

I am appalled by what was here. Incredibly, blatantly POV and filled with uncited claims, WP:NOR "analysis" that amounted to hype, and such inexcusably hyperbolic, non-encyclopedic phrases and sentences as 'John Williams' score is known as one of the greatest soundtracks ever for a superhero film" and "monstrously beating out it's [sic] $55 million budget".

WikiProject Film states how the Reception section should be written: Box-office results first, followed by a report of a critics-aggregate site (typically Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic), followed by a sampling of quotes by authoritative critics. What was here was a travesty. --Tenebrae 06:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of the material in this section was not supported by the cited Frieman article at Superman Homepage, and other parts were WP:NOR interpretation and analysis, such as the Tom Mank. rewrite giving the script a more "Science Fiction" (sic -- not a proper noun to be capitalized) tone.

Here is the pertinent material from Frieman article. Please see for yourselves and do not make claims unsupported by this if one is citing this:

As Donner explained on the 2001 Special Edition "Superman" DVD, he brought in Tom Mankiewicz to rewrite parts of the script which had already seen revisions from writers Robert Benton and David Newman (Newman's wife Leslie joined the project later to "write Lois"). The Writers' Guild gave writing credits on the film to Puzo, Benton, and the Newmans. Mankiewicz received a credit as "Creative Consultant".

Salkind acknowledges that Mankiewicz "did some great, great stuff", but suggests that the interviews on the 2001 DVD may have failed to recognize the contributions made by the film's other writers. "If you compare [earlier scripts] to the Mankiewicz script, frankly, it's surprising how little changes there were to the dialogue. Things have to be said true the way they are. I had forgotten myself and re-read the Newman script. [A]ll that stuff [on Krypton] was the same, the entire Lex Luthor thing. Tom did some great, great stuff but there was a lot of great stuff [already]."

"The whole 'pink' [Lois interviewing Superman on her balcony] and all that - that's all [the Newmans]. We tested with that and Tom wasn't working yet," noted Salkind. "We had agreed that Tom could come to work on the project [by the time we started screen tests] but the script was pretty solid."

--Tenebrae 16:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed there's a heavy reliance here on DVD commentary, which is great primary-source material.

But verbatim quotes, or at the very least a timecode, need to be here to support claims ostensibly based on a DVD interview, such as that claim of Donner wearing a Superman costume and sprinting across Mankiewicz's lawn. You can see that anyone can claim anything based on what might have been said or misheard somewhere in the hours and hours of interviews on a DVD.

For an honest claim, there should be no problem in providing exactitude. Obviously, the verbatim quote and a timecode would be best, similar to a book quote with a page number. --Tenebrae 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

After a slightly contentious disagreement with User:Xnacional over the infobox on another article, I find myself agreeing with him on the categorization of this film. The official WP description of the Category Category:Films set in the 1970s very overtly states "This category is for films with a significant portion set in the 1970s, but which were produced at a later date" (emphasis added). Thus by that definition, Superman doesn't really belong here, only in the 1950s category.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the which were produced at a later date comment from the category page - there are films listed there (such as Time After Time) which don't meet that criteria. I'll be re-adding the category. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough--WickerGuy (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense. In that case, every movie made in the 1970s would be eligible for that category. Xnacional (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I now (atypically) agree with Xnacional. All of the WP categories "Films set in the...." have as the caveat "not filmed in the 19..s" (on the category page) until TheRealFennShysa edited it out of the 1970s category.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't say "set in the 1950s" either, because that's probably the shortest of the three segments, and certainly much shorter than the main portion, which was contemporary to the late 1970s (aside from the anachronous part of Superman II which shows men on the moon, of which there were none after ca. 1972). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would add that although this film may appear to be set in the 1970s, events in subsequent Superman films (retroactively) cast that in doubt. In Superman II, humans appear to have begun to colonize the moon, and in Superman III Superman is pitted against an evil super-computer that is beyond the capacity of early 1980s technology. Finally, in Superman IV more nations have nuclear weapons than was the case in the 1980s. Thus the events of the three subsequent films suggest that this is all set in the near future (say what folks in the 70s might have imagined the early 2000s or 2010s to be like.) If this is true, it would also set the early third of the film not in the 50s, but in the late '80s/early 90s. --WickerGuy (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In Superman 3 isn't there a "Class of '66" banner at the school reunion? That would seem to imply that the films are set close to the times they came out, apart from Superman Returns which would be set in the early 80's. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps it's just a parallel universe. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

'65 not '66, but this doesn't affect your point (just checked the DVD).--WickerGuy (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall an interview with Donner where he said he tried to impose a 1930s styling on the original film (so it is a film that doesn't easily settle into its own timeframe), so in a way the first film might have been conceived as a 1930s depiction of the 1970s. As with all films set in the future the technological advances are often mis-timed and they nearly always bear the fashions of the time the films are made in - Clark's trench-coat and hat are particularly old fashioned in view of the times. Betty Logan (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been argued that with both films set in the future and the past, there is always somthing that gives away when it was made. Doctor Zhivago is easily placed in the 60s due to the hair-styles and the time-place anachronism of middle-class Russians playing balalaika as a hobby (a projection of the Western revival of folk guitar in the 60s)--WickerGuy (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any of the changes either way or the other, but I have now seen what seems like seven million changes (this weekend I'll actually count them) in the past two months back and forth and back and forth and back and forth over the nationality of the film Superman. Some anonymous editor keeps changing it to US, Canada, England, and others keep changing it back to the USA. Maybe it's time to take it to the talk page. Incidentally, IMDB does in fact list the nationality of the film as all three. I understand the case for US alone is the location of the studio who financed the film. Perhaps it would be an idea to take this issue to the talk page, develop consensus point to WP policy, and in future changes say "refer to talk page". --WickerGuy (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

This has gone on seven times since mid-March. The change to US,Canada,England always comes from an IP address- the change back (once from me) always comes from an established editor. The IP addresses are similar, but not all the same. Established editors IMO should make the case here for the nationality being on the US.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors > IP addresses. Wildroot (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The "country" field is for identifying the nationality of the film, as in the main studio's home country. IMDb is not a reliable source to cite, being user-submitted. The film was produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, which is very much an American studio. To explain this example further, Valkyrie is a film with German subject matter, but it is inherently an American film because it was produced by the American studio United Artists. There are other films in which this is not clear-cut, like Blindness having multiple minor studio involvements, but here with Superman, it's an American film. Filming in locations around the world and enlisting the help of companies in these locations doesn't give it a multi-national level. "American" is the overarching nationality of this particular film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Warner Bros. was not actually involved in the producion of the film. Warner only distributed the film. The film was produced by "Dovemead" (British) and "International Film productions" (Panama) as can be verified at http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/66900/Superman/credits. It was copyrighted at the time by the Swiss company "Film Export A.G." ([4]). Principle photography took place at Pinewood, UK. According to Wikipedia rules, the nationality field in the infobox is based on the nationalities of the production companies, which in this case clearly are Panama and UK. Since the film was copyrighted by Film Export A.G. you can make the case that Switzerland is also a production country too. Betty Logan (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right in that Warner Brothers is an American Studio. However, let us not forget that Alien is a British film, it was shot in the UK, but the studio is 20th Century Fox! While the princiciple phtotography was shot in the US, there was an undeniable British invlvement in the project on behalf of the Salkinds. The studio responsible for prodcution was Pinewood Studios, a British studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbay (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Imdb info on nationality is NOT user-submitted(!!), only the Imdb sections on Trivia, goofs, and the wiki-sections like plot synopsis are user-submitted. Also that would be "principAL photography" not "principLE photography" and certainly not "princICI(?)ple phT(?)otography"--WickerGuy (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's mentioned in the article that "El" is one of many Hebrew words meaning God or god or a god or something similar. Names such as Michael, Daniel, Israel, Rachel, etc. derive from this and translate as something-of-God or -from-God or the like. Also synagogue names like Beth El (House of God). I don't know if "Jor-El" and "Kal-El" are from the original DC comics, but I do recall that one or both of Superman's creators were Jewish, and might have been quite familiar with "El" names that referred to God or to godly people. PurpleChez (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This would belong in a general article on the character, not in an article about this movie, methinks.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That theory might be undermined by the fact that it was originally "Jor-L". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the theory has some weight, given that the two guys who created Superman were Jewish. Wildroot (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

25 edits in less than 12 hours. Is that a WP record?--WickerGuy (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Nearly all of John Williams' score is restored (some of which was dialed out of the theatrical cut)" - I’m not sure what “dialed out” means. It suggests that the “volume” was turned down, but it can’t be that, as it would be there, albeit not that audible, but that wouldn’t count as a restoration if made more prominent, surely, but a re-mix? This is followed by: "However, at least one noticeable removal occurred: the recording of "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & His Comets, heard in the original film in the minutes before the death of Glenn Ford's character, is replaced with a generic piece of instrumental music in the ABC cut." I’ve not seen this version, but isn’t the “generic piece” the John William’s composed cue written for this scene, as can be found on sound-track albums? If so, it doesn’t warrant a “however”, and should be included in the comment about music being restored. Jock123 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The men who created Superman instinctively knew that if Superman was to be invincible he would also have to be virtually faultless. Unlike other super heroes, Superman never killed anyone. He was so powerful it was not necessary. Superman would be subject to human weakness only on the emotional (not physical) side and he would have the will power to overcome any shortcomings in this area. No one mortal can do this save one, and there is your comparison. It is not disrespectful to deity in that Superman is fictional and he is good. Otherwise the entire concept does not work20:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)20:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)20:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.253.61 (talk)

From which website did you lift the above essay? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Like it says at the top of this page (emphasis added)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superman (film) article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That quote, which is obviously lifted from somewhere, might actually be usable in the article, if it were cited. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It’s kinda ridiculous to list Brando as the film’s star all these years later. The only reason he got top billing was because nobody at the time knew who Christopher Reeve was, and because Brando had a huge ego. Look at the page for Apocalypse Now. Brando also got top billing for that film, yet it sanely lists Martin Sheen at the top. Reeve played the title character, he’s clearly the main character of the film, therefore, he’s the star! 67.239.63.243 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would say there is a better case for elevating MB on Apocalypse Now. His role is small, but dramatically pivotal. Brando was also originally going to have a large part in Superman II (instead of Kal-el's mother). At any rate, for a very long time it has been WP:CONSENSUS to follow the movie credits in this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am in favor of a bit more discretion in these cases and the IP has a strong point, but on the odd occasion this debate turns up at the Film project the consensus has always been to follow the film credits. I would actually support a motion to list eponymous characters ahead of the billing order (I think the reason for listing Reeve first is more compelling than listing Sheen first on AN, since Superman is an iconic character so there is a larger degree of interest in who actually plays him), but it's not good practice for this article to simply break ranks, it should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film if anyone wants to go down that route. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a short-lived controversy over this at the film article on the 1962 Lolita (1962 film). What's interesting there is that Peter Sellers has higher billing over Sue Lyon on both the film poster and film preview, but NOT the actual film opening credits!! Someone trying to enforce credit order over dozens of film articles insisted on pushing him up, and I kept him demoted on the grounds that we could choose and the film credits was more sensible.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The last showing of Superman was on CBS on Saturday April 26, 1986 not in 1985. From Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

According to what source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is mentioning that reviewers noted similarity between Superman and Jesus necessary in the opening section of the page? When you read it is rather confusing and in my opinion irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderMelton (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed some of the information has been transferred to another section. The reason certain info was placed in the Development section had due to do with the chronological accuracy, meaning which specific actors were being considered at a certain time. It was more historically accurate. Now it gives the impression that one Richard Donner was hired that all that casting fell under him. Wildroot (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been some recent edits which I consider detrimental to the article.

• The first one involves alterations to the cast order for the film. The cast order should either follow the credits as presented in the film, or if unconventional (such as order of appearance, alphabetical) follow the order as presented in authoritative secondary sources as per WP:FILMCAST: It is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources. They should not be re-ordered according to an editor's own sense of importance. The fact remains that Christopher Reeve is only third-billed in the film and Margot Kidder comes much later in the credit list. This has already been discussed above at Talk:Superman (film)#Credits.

• The second issue, is the bloating of Margot Kidder's character summary. I have major problems with the following statements that have been added:

1. "the beautiful, sexy, and feisty reporter at the Daily Planet who becomes a romantic interest for Clark Kent." (character appraisal and an incorrect statement; at no point is she a "romantic interest").
2. "She is a careerist with a one track mind, who lets nothing stand in the way of breaking the next big story and scooping rival reporters while ignoring the potential consequences that sometimes put her in peril." (this is reading things into the film; I do not recall her scooping anyone. Also, taking risks is not the same as "ignoring all consequences", so it is subjective)
3. " her stories tend to be sensationalist (such as the title of her interview with Superman: "I Spent the Night with Superman")" (the title alone does not indicate the nature of her story)
4. "Despite this, she is very arrogant ... believing that her stories are worthy of awards such as the Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes" (the first part is subjective, the second is not supported by the plot)
5. "Her intelligence is questionable due to her being unable to recognize Clark and Superman as the same person, despite having the closest contact with both of them." (drawing conclusions; after all nobody else figures it out)
6. "She has almost nothing but contempt and disrespect for Clark." (completely subjective)
7. " However, she is madly in love with Superman." (this is highly debatable in the first film; at no point does she declare her love for him)
8. "Although she tries appearing tough, this exterior melts when she is around or is thinking about Superman, and she becomes soft and vulnerable and loses all her sexual inhibitions" (she clearly doesn't lose all "sexual inhibitions")
9. "Ultimately, Lois Lane conforms to traditional female stereotypes, as she is inferior to her man in every way. " (Lois is at the forefront of a male dominated profession in the 1970s, so I would say she clearly breaches female stereotypes)

Most of the content that has been added is unencylopedic WP:INUNIVERSE detail, and much of it is unsupported by the plot of the film itself. All analysis and interpretive claims of plot and character summaries need to be referenced per WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This movie is in the category "movies set in the 1950s", but I find nothing in the article itself that implies that, all I could find is the fact it's inspired by that decade, that doesn't mean it takes place in the 1950's.

So I ask again, how do we know? There isn't any sub-text in the movie itself that gives the exact year or decade the movie takes place in. In fact it does feel to me that the movie takes place in the 1970's instead. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a long time since I have seen it but isn't the Smallville segment set in the 1950s? They have 50s style clothes, 50s style hairstyles and the car radio is playing 50s hits at one point from what I recall. That said I wouldn't oppose removing all the "set in" categories if there is nothing explicit to establish it is set in 50s or 70s. Betty Logan (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Very true Betty. The only date mentioned in the film is when Lex Luthor says that that Krypton exploded in 1948 and that to took the baby Superman 3 years to travel to Earth which would make it 1951 when the Kents found him.SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Smallville segment is just the beginning of the movie. Not most of it, so I'm removing the category. There is very little time in the movie spent showing Clark Kent as a kid/teenager, most of it is about him being a news reporter who has the alter ego Superman. In my opinion this category should only have movies where the majority of it takes place at a specific time, which is clearly not the case with this movie. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Lex Luthor states that Superman said in the interview with Lois that Krypton exploded in 1948, and he (Superman) travelelled 3 years to get to earth. In the Fortress of solitude, Jor_el tells Clark he is 18 years old, so that makes him in high school between 1962 and 1966. The part of the movie where Clark becomes superman seems to take place in the late 70s, more than likely the year of the movie 1978, which would make Clark 30 years old. Though we don't know the year when he becomes superman, we do know his High school years were in the 60s not 50s. So, I guess the movie took place in the 40s, 50s,60s and 70s. ~unsigned.

While the article stated that Kal-El's ship arrived on Earth three years after its departure from, and the destruction of, Krypton, Jor-El's image in the Fortress of Solitude states that "By now... I will have been dead for many thousands of your years." Also, assuming Kal-El arrived on Earth as a three-year-old, the "teenage Clark" section would occur 15 years later, rather that eighteen as previously stated. Edited. Ilumnatr (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The second part would be true, as simple arithmetic. The first part sounds like a contradiction, except that it's apparently assumed that the ship was traveling near light-speed, so while thousands of years passed in "normal time", only three years passed for Kal-El. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But how can it be thousands of years when Lex Luthor tells his accomplices that in the interview Superman says Krypton was destroyed in 1948 and it took him three years to get to Earth, and Clark goes to the Daily Planet in 1978 (when he was 30, 18+12 years) when he reveals himself as Superman. Jor-el also says by the time you hear this it would be many thousands of your years, so Kal-El didn't only age 3 years in thousands of years, but it seems earth years go faster than Krypton years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a movie. They make mistakes in movies all the time. DonQuixote (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes they do make mistakes in the Movies all the time, but this one did not, if you listen to all the dialogue about Krypton exploding and superman coming to earth. Many sci fi stories have solar systems (or planets) where times passes differently than the rest of the universe do to time dilation in that area only. Jor-El says in your time as you on Earth reckon it will be 100os of years ago, but Lex quotes Superman in the interview as saying Krypton exploded in 1948 (earth time) and it took him three years to get here. This goes perfectly with selective space time dialation, not the ship taking 1000s of years and Calrk only aging three years because of time didaltion through space travel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Straying into forum but...time dilation affects all three reference frames (Krypton, rocket, Earth). None of the reference frames will have the same passage of time (and you mean gravitational+speed time dilation when you say "selective" time dilation). Three years for Clark in the rocket won't be three years Earth time (in fact his time will be much much less because of speed time dilation and he's the one accelerating into Earth's reference frame). And also, time dilation means that you observe other reference frames experiencing a slower passage of time, so in fact, from Earth's perspective less time has passed on Krypton (so not 1000s of years). But what I've just said is original research. And so is what you said above. DonQuixote (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not original research. It is based on all the move quotes and the fact that with traveling at light speed, to the one in the ship it is instantaneous, but there is normal time to those in the regular flow of time. Those who say the ship took 1000s of years to get from Krypton to Earth are doing original research by ignoring all the statements in the movie. Or if I am using original research and they are, then whose original research should stand. I would guess neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's original research because your physics is wrong as well as the film not mentioning anything about "traveling at light speed". DonQuixote (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some of my explanations uses assumed propositions, so would be considered original research. But so was the original text I changed. I agree with your new version. It gets rid of mine and the other's original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And still let's know how much time passed for Kal-el and for Krypton 96.228.48.108 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

They never mention time dilation, or where the 100s of years passed, Earth or Krypton. This is science fiction you know, where time dilation can only happen to planets but not the rest of space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think time dialation should be removed as original research.

• An anonymous editor keeps changing the text regarding the length of time of Superman's voyage to Earth as a baby, regarding the "thousands of years" reference. From what we know from the film:

1. Kal-El arrives on Earth at an unspecified time as a toddler. The Kents seem to be driving a depression era vehicle (certainly no earlier than a 1930s model).
2. The high school sequence is also set during an unspecified time period, although the music and clothes would seem to date it to the 1950s.
3. We possibly see a very young Lois (pre-teen) on the train as Clark races it. At this stage Clark is a biologically a few years older than Lois
4. At the Fortress of Solitude Jor-El tells Superman "By now you will have reached your eighteenth year as it is measured on earth. By that same reckoning I will have been dead for many thousands of your years."
5. He spends twelve years at the Fortress of Solitude.
6. In the interview with Lois he declines to tell her his age.
7. Lex Luther states "According to that interview the planet Krypton blew up on May 23, 1948. "The rocket carrying the revolting little freak took three years to reach Earth."

The timescale has a ton of contradictions in it. The production was very troubled so it is possible they are continuity errors, but if we put that aside there are several plausible explanations: i) Jor-El did indeed get his years confused, although he seems to be referencing Earth years by giving Clark's biological human age; ii) Superman misleads Lois in the interview either wilfully or inadvertently; iii) Lois misunderstands some of the more complicated physics; iv) Luther simply misquotes the interview, based on his own calculations. There are several different interpretations so the plot summary should try to just outline the basic story without getting into irrelevant and contradictory plot points i.e. he arrives on Earth as toddler (however long it takes) and grows up to be Superman. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, much is vague in the movie. But...

1. The common assumption, not verified, is that the part of the movie where Clark goes to work for the daily planet and becomes Superman is the 1978 due to the lingo, outfits and cars.
2. You assume that the movie has continuity errors (original research), instead of using what the movie says combined.
3. Superman says he does not lie, so he would not have lied to Lois.
4. Lex Luthor says "In the interview he says, "that the Planet Krypton...exploded in 1948. That ridiculous little freak...took three years in a rocket to get to earth.
5. If you the things the movie say: Krypton exploding in 1948, Clark in the interview taking three years to travel to earth, Jorel saying he was 18 at the first time at the fortress, Jorell saying he would train for 12 years. You add those up then 1948 + 18 years (including the 3 year travel) + 12 years at the Fortress, then that makes 30 years which brings you to 1978.
6. The movie never mentions time dilation or how many years opass on earth, just how long Jor-El was dead.
7. So Jor-El could have been wrong. We don't know. So the theory that only the space around Krypton was time dilated is no more original research then ignoring what Clark, who says he does not lie, shares in the Lois interview. Saying Lois is wrong or Luthor is wrong but Jor-El is right is original research as well.

So to come to consensus I think we ought to change it to "Clark lands on Earth at three years of age". Drop 1000s of years and time dilation. OR add a section of time inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am ok with the compromise wording and to leave time dilation out of the summary because it is not all that essential to the plot, but I feel you are misunderstanding some basic principles of physics which should be addressed. Time dilation must have occurred on some level on an intergalactic voyage i.e. the faster your velocity, the more time dilates. This is a scientific fact that has been proven under experimental conditions. Time even dilates when you ride your bicycle, it is just negligible for you at those speeds. If super-fast speeds are sustained on an intergalactic voyage the effects will be significant. We know that Kal-El passes through six galaxies, so even if Krypton is located in a galaxy in the Local Group it must be at least 200,000 light years away. For instance, if you travel for three years at 90% the speed of light you will age roughly 1.5 years over that duration. If you travel for three years at 95% the speed of light you will age less than 1 year. The faster you go the more time dilates. Obviously travelling close to the speed of light would only burn 3 light years off your journey, so either the ship travels at much greater speeds than the speed of light (which if possible would propel the ship back in time rendering the whole discussion moot) or the journey takes much longer than three years. For example, if you travel at 0.99999995% the speed of light for 10,000 years then you will age approximately 3 years. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I 100% believe in time dilation. I was only saying that rather he took 1000s of years, but only aged three or rather he only travelled three, but only the Krypton area time dilated which happens in sci fi all the time, are both opinions aka point of view, so a compromise is needed. Also there is the theory that no time passes in the ship when you go light speed, but a lot of time passes outside of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Question how has time dilation been proven fact under experimental conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just Kidding 96.228.48.108 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Another time inconsistency: In the Expanded Edition of the movie, after Superman rescues Air Force One, he visits his father at the Fortress. Jor-El tells him he (Superman) cannot serve humanity 28 hours a day. Superman corrects him, ("24"). Jor-El responds, "Or 24... as it is in Earth time." Just1thing (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not an inconsistency, it's just different scales...like yard vs meter or pound vs Newton. DonQuixote (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The opening claims the movie has an alternate title, Superman: The Movie. This doesn't appear onscreen, and aside from colloquial references, where is it called that? In any Warner Bros. source? On redone titles onscreen in home media? This seems a case of people repeating secondhand information that, once you trace it back, may not even be true. Could we get some reference on this, please?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The NY Times has it listed as an alternate title, but whether it was ever used in any formal context (i.e. an English-language release) I couldn't really say. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Betty. Yeah, I see it has "Superman: The Movie, Superman the Movie", so this purported alternate title doesn't appear to be precise. Also, that's syndicated content from All Media Guide and not done by New York Times editorial staff. I'll keep looking to see if this was a release title somewhere — or even a marketing title that Warner Bros. used. Otherwise, I get the feeling Wikipedia has been perpetrating an urban (well, cinematic) myth. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A simple Google Image Search offers plenty of proof that the film was (and still is) formally marketed as "Superman: The Movie". That form of the title – as spelled out in the trademarked logo for the film – can be found on contemporary ads, VHS boxes, modern DVD/Blu-Ray covers, original soundtrack albums, book and DC comics tie-ins, and even a 1979 calendar if you need something with an obvious contemporary date on it. Skepticism is nice, but excluding something that is common knowledge just because it isn't part of your own knowledge is unconstructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have belatedly reverted a three-month old edit to a sentence that has been stable since December 2015. Superman is informally known as Superman: The Movie but it was not marketed that way, certainly not on its 1978 release. Warner Bros. markets the DVD release as that — though the onscreen title hasn't changed — and movies sometimes are marketed with a title change for home video ... but that doesn't change the title of the movie or the way the original release was marketed. The stable version is the more accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Superman (1978 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930173905/http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music to http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013013543/http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/10036/ to http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/10036
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908200137/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041215/COMMENTARY/41215001/1023 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041215/COMMENTARY/41215001/1023
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205083159/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_165.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_165.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205081943/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_168.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_168.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205082945/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_166.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_166.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211233340/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_169.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_169.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205075839/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_174.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_174.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205082009/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_194.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_194.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205081634/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_157.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_157.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205083001/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_191.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_191.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710193902/http://www.entertainmentbuff.com/culture/what-if-star-wars-had-never-been-made/ to http://www.entertainmentbuff.com/culture/what-if-star-wars-had-never-been-made/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/10top10.pdf?docID=381&AddInterest=1781

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I recently added inflation-adjusted numbers in parentheses for the movie's earnings to help put it in context (I hate articles that just give me dollar amounts from decades ago without giving me an idea how that compares to today). Betty Logan deleted these with the following perplexing comment:

You can't adjust global earnings by US inflation and adjusted data doesn't belong in the lead anyway

Not really clear to me what this is supposed to mean.

• Why can't a U.S. dollar amount from the 70s be converted to an equivalent amount in the 2010s? Where the money originated is irrelevant. One could argue that the potential earnings today might be different if the film was released today in other parts of the world I guess but still what does that have to do with anything?
• Why does this clarification not belong in the lead? The lead is literally the most important place in the article to be clear.

-- MC

Comment I have nothing against inflation adjustment and I think it can be helpful when it is used properly but in this case I don't think it added anything to the article. I will take each of your three points in turn:

1. You are wrong that it does not matter where the money is earned. Inflation is economy based and inflation using the US consumer price index (which is the inflator you used in this article to adjust a worldwide gross) does not occur in countries such as the UK, Japan or France. Therefore while it is legitimate to inflate the US gross using US CPI—although that is not the only way—it is not legitimate to inflate worldwide grosses as you did using US CPI, because it is not applicable outside the United States. To look at it another way, you wouldn't inflate UK dollar grosses using US ticket price inflation, because what has essentially happened is that the film has earned the money in British pounds (dependent on the price of UK tickets) and then converted into dollars dependent on the exchange rate for that year. Guinness World Records recently published a list of the top 10 grossing films films worldwide, adjusted for inflation, and they way they did it was by estimating the total number of tickets the film sold globally adjusted by the approximate ticket prices in various parts of the world.
2. Secondly, inflation is not a particularly great way of presenting context and often there are better ways. The film industry has changed a lot in recent years: an expanding global market means films are earning more money than ever before globally even after factoring inflation in, and because the re-release market has died out due to home video and TV that means that many films earn less in the domestic market adjusted for inflation because they don't get multiple releases. For example, a film wouldn't earn $1.5 billion today domestically like Gone with the Wind because that film built its gross up over many releases, so inflation does not provide great context on its own. Likewise, the $200 million adjusted figure that Superman cost to make is a typical blockbuster budget in today's global market, but back in the 1970s it was an unpredented amount for the cost of a film. Which do you think provides more context? A figure of $200 million that is comparable to many modern-day budgets or explicitly stating it was the most expensive film ever made up to that point? In this capacity it is the record and not the figure that provides the context. Likewise, saying the film grossed $1.1 billion—based on a dubious calculation—doesn't provide any more context than saying the film was the second biggest release of 1978. A ranking is a lot more universal than an inflation adjustment because it neutralises conditions such as an expanding global market and the collapse of the re-release market.
3. Finally, an inflation adjusted figure is not hard data; it is the result of a calculation that is dependent on your choice of price index so an adjusted figure should not really be presented in the lead as a hard fact. Gone with the Wind (film) doesn't have any figures at all in the lead and saves them for the "audience response" section where it contextualises each figure, sometimes with ranks, sometimes with admisions, and in one case with inflation adjusted data.

As I said at the start of my comment I have nothing against inflaton adjustments where appropriate, and funnily enough I actually added an inflation-adjusted table to an article just this evening; however, it is important that adjustment is undertaken correctly and we should bear in mind it is only one technique for providing context and sometimes there are better ways of doing that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with some of your underlying points but, with all due respect, you are over-thinking. Granted inflation-adjusted numbers are always somewhat hokey and there are always competing notions as to what index scheme to use. Wikipedia, in general, has chosen conventional price indices of each currency as a standard, which is very reasonable. The notion that it is wrong to index worldwide grosses using the U.S. CPI is illogical. By that same argument I could say that it is wrong to report total grosses in U.S. dollars because the conversion rates between all those currencies is always changing. So if you object the notion of using the U.S. CPI you must also object to using a single figure in a single currency. To the extent that it is legitimate to summarize grosses in a single currency it is equally legitimate to indicate what the equivalent amount of that currency would be today (regardless of whether the film could actually earn that much today, etc. etc.). Granted in both cases there are important caveats (many of them the same caveats) but at some point you have to accept that the article is a summary of some very complex information and, provided it is not misleading to its purpose, the summarization is acceptable if it educates the reader.

And to your other point, ranking historical films based on their revenues is a pointless exercise IMHO. To the extent that revenues are discussed to indicate how much they enriched the producers, the information is meaningful (which was what I was trying to convey). But using that to indicate the relative popularity or significance of the film is totally pointless. There are too many other variables over time to say that revenue has any meaningful correlation with popularity no matter how you measure it. So to me concerns about how inflation adjustment "neutralises conditions such as an expanding global market ..." are worrying about nothing as ranking based on revenue is not useful.

-- MC

In cases where sometimes as much as 80% of the money was grossed outside of the United States you can't adjust by US CPI or US ticket price inflation because the inflation index doesn't apply to most of the figure. Essentially what people are doing when they adjust box-office for inflation is to ask how much the film would have grossed today if it had sold the exact same number of tickets in each territory. You can't calculate that answer by just using a US inflation measure because there are countries around the world that have had very different inflation rates to the US (e.g. China, Russia). There is an entirely valid reason why box-office trackers like Box Office Mojo doesn't do inflated worldwide charts it and only have an adjusted US chart. And because Wikipedia doesn't do WP:Original research we don't create entirely "new" information as you are proposing. You also completely avoided my point that qualifying a figure in its historical context is more useful than just inflating it: telling a reader that Superman's $55 million budget was the most expensive budget up to that point provides the reader with more insight into the unprecedented nature of the budget than simply telling them its value inflates to $200 million, which won't mean much to them at all unless you provide some context for that figure. By simply telling a reader the budget inflates to $200 million what information exactly are you trying to convey? What does the reader get out of knowing $55 million is worth $200 million today? I am all for including inflation adjusted figures when they provide the reader with meaningful information but I don't support throwing numbers at readers just for the sake of it, which I think is ultimately what you are advocating. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to concur with Betty Logan. I don't believe it's helpful to use simplistic math that doesn't recognize there's no real apples-to-apples comparison. Having contextual prose is much more useful. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superman (1978 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1448874964259
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1448874611974
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618040335/http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol10No2/Stucky_Superman.htm to http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol10No2/Stucky_Superman.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

See Ghostbusters (2016 film) and Die Hard 2, among other films later marketed under a title that is not the onscreen title. Someone erroneously wrote in an edit summary that MOS precludes clarity and an explanation, but it does not. It doesn't say anything at all about it, actually. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The article does not mention that, although the time travel could work at the very end of a 1-off movie, it causes such severe plot and logical problems, that it not only was never done again in sequels, but not even mentioned again. We have 2 problems:

• Timetravel destroys all stakes.
• Timetravel causes extreme logical problems.

If we have time travel, all problems can be undone. It totally destroys all stakes. as a "Deus Ex Machina" at the end of a 1-off, it works.

Superman should have encountered himself in the past. As grand finally of a 1-shot, this is not a problem because the Movie ends. The audience might figure that we have 2 Supermen, 1 for each missile, and will see both in future movies, but this causes problems in the sequels.

all future sequels never referenced Superman timetravelling. Basically, the sequels pretend that time travel never happened. It is retconned away.

Future D. C. comics, movies, et cetera kept the option of timetravel, but it is always extremely difficult and has terrible sideeffects. Basically, it is something one only attempts for saving the world, after it is destroyed, and always has horrendous sideeffects such as the world being transforming into a despotic nightmare where Donald Trump won the 2016 Election instead of Hilary Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:2830:AD79:A89E:341A:EC41 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)